Vol. X. 



NOV. 1, 1882. 



No. 11. 



A. I. ROOT, I Published Monthly. 



Publisher and Proprietor^ \ 



Medina, o. J EstahUsJied in 1873. 



TERMS; 81.00 PER ANNUM, IN ADVANCE; 

 2 Copies for $1.90; 3 for $2.75; 6 for $4.00; 10 

 or more, 75 cts. each. Single Number, 10 cts , 

 Additions to clubs may be made at club 

 rates. Above are all to be sent to one post- 

 office. Clubs to different postofflces, not 

 1^ LESS than 90 cts. each. 



NOTES FROM THE BANNER APIARY. 



NO. 36. 



QUEEN-CAGES. 



-ITHIN easy reach, upon my desk, lies the 

 ^' Official Postal Guide. So many of mycustom- 

 ers write their addresses so indistinctly, that 

 I never I'eel just right until I have looked up their 

 postofflces in the Guide. This Guide is the one used 

 by all postmasters. In this Guide I find the follow- 

 ing: "The Postmaster General has consented to a 

 temporary suspension of the ruling excluding queen- 

 bees from being sent in the mails; but when offered 

 for mailing they must be put up in accordance with 

 Section 323; and so soon as they arc found to injure 

 the person of any one handling the mails, or soil the 

 contents of the mail-pouches, this order will be re- 

 scinded." 



Section 223 has nothing to say about a double wire 

 screen; hence, according to the Postal Guide, noth- 

 ing of the kind is required. Postmasters and postal 

 clerks know nothing about a double wire screen 

 for queen-cages, but thej' do know that the contents 

 of the.'mail-bags must not be soiled, and that their 

 own precious persons must not be Injured. But let 

 us suppose, for the sake of argument, that, accord- 

 ing to the exact letter of the law, queen-cages do re- 

 quire a double wire screen, would it not bo just as 

 well to use our common sense in the matter, and 

 make our queen-cages in such a manner that no 

 harm would come to the mails nor to the persons 

 handling them, even if the double wire screen were 

 omitted? By the way, 1 think that an extract from 



a letter just received from friend Good would fit as 

 well here as anywhere. It is as follows:— 



" Friend Newman said I should tell Doolittle that 

 my cage was not according to the letter of the law, 

 but according to the spirit, and say that ' the letter 

 killeth, but the spirit maketh alive.' " 



But what friend Doolittle said about honey oozing 

 from the candy, and daubing the outside of the cage, 

 is, to my mind, much more important than his re- 

 marks about a double wire screen, because the law 

 (and common sense) expressly say that the order will 

 be rescinded if the contents of the mail-pouches are 

 soiled. I wrote to friend Good, asking him if he 

 could tell how it happened that the outside of the 

 cage sent to Doolittle was daubed witk honey. 

 Here is his reply: — 



"As to this oozing business, I am satisfied that 

 this is an exception and not the rule, as friend Doo- 

 little is the only one who has complained about the 

 honey oozing out of the cage. I account for it in 

 this way: The grain of the granulated sugar is very 

 hard and dry; so much so that it requires several 

 days for it to become soft and thoroughly saturated 

 with honey. If the feed is mixed and put into the 

 cages soon after mixing, considerable of the honey 

 will soak into the wood, while if the mixture is al- 

 lowed to stand a few days, and then the surplus 

 honey be drained off, the sugar will then hold the 

 honey, and keep it from soaking into the wood. I 

 have a few times this summer mixed feed and used 

 it at once, and I suppose friend Doolittle must have 

 received a cage in which the feed had just been 

 mixed. As I have said before, the principal thing is 

 to get the feed just right; if It is soft, it will leak 

 out; if dry, the bees will dig into it and let it rattle 

 all over the cage." 



Perhaps one more paragraph from friend Good's 

 letter will be of interest; he says:— 



"Last summer I ordered a queen from D. A. 



